Holmes: The politics of casinos

Monday

Jun 30, 2014 at 4:35 PMJul 2, 2014 at 12:23 PM

By Rick HolmesMassPoliticalNews.comA campaign that had been looking for a theme found one last week, with a little help from the Supreme Judicial Court. Now casinos will be on the ballot, and on the minds of voters, as commercials pro and con crowd out candidate pitches in the weeks leading up to Election Day.The political establishment had hoped it wouldn't come to this. After years of intense lobbying, the Legislature three years ago agreed, by large, bipartisan majorities, on a modest plan for up to three resort-type casinos and one slots parlor, with voters given a veto of any casino proposed for their community. Licenses have already been granted for a casino in Springfield and a slots operation in Plainville.Whether Attorney General Martha Coakley's office tried to keep the casino repeal initiative off the ballot for legitimate legal or purely political reasons no longer matters. The SJC wasn't buying the constitutional arguments. Coakley is embarrassed either way, and the one thing all candidates for governor seem to agree on is that the voters should have a say.But which voters? As is often the case in public policy, the question comes down to, “who decides?” Does the elected state Legislature get to decide how to legalize and regulate casino gambling? Should the voters get to reverse course three years into the process? Do the elected officials and voters of Springfield get to decide whether MGM's casino proposal fits into their community, or should voters in Hopkinton and Williamstown and Boston's Back Bay be able to veto that plan?The difference between policy and politics is that the emotion behind issues like gambling can drown out all nuance, scramble partisan alignments and shape attitudes about candidates in unpredictable ways.Gambling is a rare issue that pulls from both extremes. Cultural conservatives and nanny state liberals may use different language, but they agree gambling is so bad for people that the government is justified in limiting it.Then there are the moderates. They may be concerned about the downside of gambling, but they've been to a casino or two without being transformed into slots machine zombies. They may not want a casino down the street, but they aren't offended by one in Springfield, Everett or New Bedford.Moderates care about economic development as well, and they'll welcome whatever jobs three casinos and slots parlor create. Polls show support for casinos on economic grounds has weakened as the economy has improved. Tell that to Springfield, which has an unemployment rate of 8.4 percent, compared to 5.6 percent for the state as a whole. There, MGM's $800 million investment in a struggling downtown is seen as an opportunity, not a curse.The casino question is already fueling primary battles in both parties. Democratic governor candidate Don Berwick is appealing to eat-your-vegetables liberals with his strong opposition to casinos in any form, while opponents Coakley and Steve Grossman oppose repeal, though without enthusiasm.Republican Charlie Baker also says he'll vote against repeal, though he's happy to see it on the ballot. His nuanced position – he'd prefer one casino to three – won't spur enthusiasm in the anti-gambling crowd. Mark Fisher, Baker's tea party challenger, supports repeal, but on practical, not ideological grounds: He says private casinos will undermine the state's own highly-profitable Lottery operations.Three independents running for governor are also split, with Evan Falchuk opposing repeal, Jeff McCormick favoring repeal on economic grounds and Scott Lively opposed to all gambling on moral grounds.In a hotly-contested Democratic race for attorney general, Maura Healey is staunchly in favor of repeal, while Warren Tolman, with strong labor backing, shows more enthusiasm for casinos than any other candidate.There's no federal issue involved here, but that won't stop Republican Brian Herr, who is challenging Sen. Ed Markey, from bringing it up. As chairman of the Hopkinton Board of Selectmen, Herr led efforts to stop a casino just over the town line in Milford.How this will play out in individual races is anyone's guess. The anti-casino crowd is louder than it is large. The moderates are OK with casinos, but not enthusiastic about them. The safest prediction comes from Secretary of State William Galvin, who said last week the ballot question should inspire “a very intensive turnout” – and a lot of money spent by companies that have already invested big bucks trying to bring casinos to Massachusetts.Rick Holmes writes for MassPoliticalNews.com and the MetroWest Daily News. He can be reached at rholmes@wickedlocal.com. Visit MPN online or follow @masspolinews.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.